"Uniformed armed forces" is a specific legal category used in international law ...

Click to expand...

And of course prior to that, the British Navy (and before that the English Navy) were their nation's "uniformed armed forces." America and other nations also posessed uniformed armed forces before 1864 (first geneva convention).

The United Federation of Planets probably isn't based on the Geneva Conventions and old Earth notions about the legal status of uniformed armed forces would be considered quaint and primitive ...

Click to expand...

The UFP might have that convention frimly ingrained in the way they do things. Earth was one of the founding member of the Federation and Starfleet seem to to a large degree be based upon Human military procedures.

Many of the real world people who created Star Trek were US military veterans, it only natural that their experience found their way in to the show, rank structure, custom and courtesies, and so forth.

It maybe a bit telling that Starfleet uses the ranks of Commander and Lt. Commander, which pins the originals of Starfleet's rank structure to four Human Navies.

I really liked the idea of the MACOs, who could be assigned to a starship whenever military force was necessary.

Click to expand...

Actually, the whole point with their introduction seemed to be that they never did that sort of thing, which is why Forrest thought that Archer might be offended. After all, Archer had heavily armed troops of his own, in Starfleet uniforms, to do whatever internal defending his starship needed. And that was with an explicitly unique exploration-oriented starship, suggesting that most other Starfleet vessels would be dedicated to combat. (Or then to asteroid trawling or buoy maintenance, but somehow I doubt that.)

The Military Assault Command vs. Starfleet Command thing sounds like classic interservices rivalry: the MACO forces do their own thing, possibly with their own ships, and when a MACO contingent is sent aboard a SFC vessel to do the job of Starfleet's own "Marines", it's naturally considered an insult.

Whether any of that carried over when the UFP was formed, we don't know. We get occasional references to Commands other than Starfleet Command in TNG and DS9, but all of those seem to be subservient to Starfleet Command, rather than equals and rivals. Then again, all of those Terraform Commands and whatnot pop out of the left field and then disappear; statistically, something like Military Command (in the old sense of military = ground forces) might exist but remain unseen, in TNG at least. In the war-heavy DS9, that's rather unlikely, though.

And yes, the coast guards of those countries DO fight in wars, and have at many times participated in military operations in their nations' coastal waters. Interestingly, the original Revenue Cutter Service -- the civilian law enforcement service that is the immediate predecessor of the Coast Guard -- also participated in war prior to its formalization as a uniformed service.
[...]
The Coast Guard was never "declared" to be a military organization; it was CREATED as one in 1915 when two civilian agencies were incorporated into it and was intentionally modeled after the U.S. Navy.

Click to expand...

The USCG is more like a military organization charged with law enforcement, which have long existed and still exist in many countries. The US Revenue Marine/Revenue Cutter Service was not a civilian organization and essentially no different from the early USCG: It was a uniformed service of the United States under the Treasury Department, and, since the 1790s, could be transferred to operate under the Navy Department when ordered by the President (usually wartime). Officers held commissions from the President, confirmed by the Senate. Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to regulate the service, and its personnel were subject to its regulations and discipline and tried in its service courts.

Very true. Except that Starfleet's operations, ships, mission roles and even its rank structure (the suspicious absence of enlisted crewmen on the Enterprise-D) are a better fit for an armed version of NOAA.

Click to expand...

Enlisted crew weren't featured much in the series to be sure, but they were there (O'Brien, Crewman Tarses).

Enterprise: the distinction between "the military" and Starfleet, the former referring exclusively to the MACOs

TNG: Picard's exact words "Starfleet is not a military organization. Its purpose is exploration," followed by Riker's statement: "I think it's a waste of effort to test our combat skills. It's a minor province in the make-up of a starship captain.".

Voyager is the only one I can't find a reference for, mainly because I detest Voyager and can't watch more than two episodes in week without becoming disoriented.

Click to expand...

So there's one person explicitly stating that Starfleet isn't military, but others have said it is, and some Starfleet personnel identify themselves as soldiers. That's hardly definitive enough to rule out any other interpretation.

So there's one person explicitly stating that Starfleet isn't military, but others have said it is, and some Starfleet personnel identify themselves as soldiers.

Click to expand...

Might be as simple as a return to the old distinction of Military vs. Navy. Picard would be saying "Starfleet is not an organization of mindless infantrymen doing their stupid drills, which is why I initially objected to these wargames". This regardless of whether a Military (in the opposite-of-Navy sense) still exists in Picard's time - or whether he's throwing the insult exactly because the last Military that practiced those mindless drills was disbanded long ago, so no living person will be offended.

"Uniformed armed forces" is a specific legal category used in international law ...

Click to expand...

And of course prior to that, the British Navy (and before that the English Navy) were their nation's "uniformed armed forces." America and other nations also posessed uniformed armed forces before 1864 (first geneva convention).

Click to expand...

They also possessed non-uniformed armed forces, uniformed forces that weren't armed, and armed forces that operated on a strictly for-hire basis. It is some of those practices the Geneva Conventions specifically sought to ban.

The UFP might have that convention frimly ingrained in the way they do things. Earth was one of the founding member of the Federation and Starfleet seem to to a large degree be based upon Human military procedures.

Click to expand...

Actually, Starfleet seems to a large degree to be based on NOAA with some sophisticated weapon systems installed in the boot. It doesn't seem reflect military practices all that well, especially compared to other sci-fi productions that explicitly seek to depict those practices (e.g. Battlestar Galactica, Seaquest, Stargate SG-1).

The most obvious example is the fact that Starfleet officers do not salute their superiors. As best we can tell, they don't even have to stand at attention unless the Captain's in a pissy mood.

It maybe a bit telling that Starfleet uses the ranks of Commander and Lt. Commander, which pins the originals of Starfleet's rank structure to four Human Navies.

Click to expand...

Or to NOAA, which again uses the same rank structure (and, like the crew of Enterprise-D, entirely lacks enlisted ranks).

The US Revenue Marine/Revenue Cutter Service was not a civilian organization and essentially no different from the early USCG: It was a uniformed service of the United States under the Treasury Department

Click to expand...

And was, in that capacity, a law enforcement organization, not a military one. They, like the Federal Marshals, could and did work in tandem with the military in time of war.

OTOH, I'll again remind you that NOAA is also a uniformed service and is not, strictly speaking, a civilian agency either.

So there's one person explicitly stating that Starfleet isn't military, but others have said it is

Click to expand...

Only two people ever implied that it was. One was David Marcus, who earlier described Admiral Kirk as a "boyscout" and later accused him of murdering the Genesis Science Team. The other was Sisko, when he describes admiral Leyton's coup de tat as a "military dictatorship."

In David's case it would be just one of a half dozen examples of him not knowing what the fuck he's talking about. In Sisko's case "military dictatorship" is a loaded term, and it's unclear exactly HOW loaded it really is. Is there, after all, a difference between a serial killer and a crazed serial killer?

some Starfleet personnel identify themselves as soldiers.

Click to expand...

ONE Starfleet officer describes himself as a soldier when talking to a bunch of sanctimonious Organians that are really pissing him off by refusing to fight for their own freedom.

What IS definitive, however, is that Starfleet has been explicitly described as a non-military organization and implicitly stated to be one far more often than the reverse. OF the counter claims, one of them is made by an angry civilian whose batting average on accurate statements is shockingly low.

Actually, Starfleet seems to a large degree to be based on NOAA with some sophisticated weapon systems installed in the boot. It doesn't seem reflect military practices all that well, especially compared to other sci-fi productions that explicitly seek to depict those practices (e.g. Battlestar Galactica, Seaquest, Stargate SG-1).

Click to expand...

Except Starfleet trains for combat, NOAA does not. When a NOAA predecessor organization, the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, was last employed in wartime on a large scale, its missions were similar to those of peacetime: mapping, charting and surveying. And they were assigned to army or navy commands, they did not have units of their own.

Or to NOAA, which again uses the same rank structure (and, like the crew of Enterprise-D, entirely lacks enlisted ranks).

Click to expand...

Again, E-D did not entirely lack enlisted personnel.

OTOH, I'll again remind you that NOAA is also a uniformed service and is not, strictly speaking, a civilian agency either.

Click to expand...

Not really. You're referring to the NOAA commissioned corps, which is 300-400 out of some 12,000 NOAA personnel. Unlike Starfleet officers, NOAA commissioned officers are not subject to military justice unless actually assigned to an armed forces unit.

What IS definitive, however, is that Starfleet has been explicitly described as a non-military organization and implicitly stated to be one far more often than the reverse. OF the counter claims, one of them is made by an angry civilian whose batting average on accurate statements is shockingly low.

Click to expand...

"Implicitly stated..." is begging the question as it assumes the definition excludes war-fighting forces not explicitly declared to be "military" (and from what we have seen, for Federation war-fighting, Starfleet is it). My point being, if we're trying to pin down how the word is actually used and understood, absent a 24th century dictionary, the sample is too small to be definitive.

Actually, Starfleet seems to a large degree to be based on NOAA with some sophisticated weapon systems installed in the boot. It doesn't seem reflect military practices all that well, especially compared to other sci-fi productions that explicitly seek to depict those practices (e.g. Battlestar Galactica, Seaquest, Stargate SG-1).

Click to expand...

Except Starfleet trains for combat, NOAA does not.

Click to expand...

And operationally, that is actually ONLY difference between NOAA and Starfleet. If you took the RV Atlantis and bolted on an Otobreda Compact and a couple of torpedo launchers, it would literally be the maritime counterpart of the starship Enterprise.

OTOH, I'll again remind you that NOAA is also a uniformed service and is not, strictly speaking, a civilian agency either.

Click to expand...

Not really. You're referring to the NOAA commissioned corps

Click to expand...

Of course. You know, the guys who actually OPERATE their ships and aircraft.

Unlike Starfleet officers, NOAA commissioned officers are not subject to military justice...

Click to expand...

Yes they are, depending on the offense. But again, we don't actually know enough about Federation legal traditions to know for sure that a formal civilian court even exists.

"Implicitly stated..." is begging the question as it assumes the definition excludes war-fighting forces not explicitly declared to be "military"

Click to expand...

And "Warfighting forces not declared to be military" is EXACTLY what Starfleet is. The Federation, like the Japanese Government, has apparently decided that this distinction means something to them even if it doesn't mean much to anyone else.

And that would be enough of an issue if Starfleet WAS a defensive force which was for whatever reason being referred to as a non-military organization. But it's not even that; it's an armed exploration fleet that is being referred to as a non-military organization.

My point being, if we're trying to pin down how the word is actually used and understood, absent a 24th century dictionary, the sample is too small to be definitive.

Click to expand...

As far as Starfleet is concerned, the fact that it's not a military organization is definitive. What we're trying to pin down is WHY.

So there's one person explicitly stating that Starfleet isn't military, but others have said it is

Click to expand...

Only two people ever implied that it was. One was David Marcus, who earlier described Admiral Kirk as a "boyscout" and later accused him of murdering the Genesis Science Team. The other was Sisko, when he describes admiral Leyton's coup de tat as a "military dictatorship."

Click to expand...

Kirk, McCoy, Garth of Izar, David Marcus and Carol Marcus and the Military Aide and C in C. That would be 7 people during the TOS thru TOS Movie time period.

Sisko's remark occurs well after TOS so it's possible during DS9's war that Starfleet went Military for the duration of combat. For TOS, Spock's comment about 70 years of unremitting hostility with the Klingons could indicate that Starfleet had been Military for at least that long while "keeping the peace".

What IS definitive, however, is that Starfleet has been explicitly described as a non-military organization and implicitly stated to be one far more often than the reverse.

Click to expand...

What IS definitive is that Starfleet has been explicitly a Military organization during TOS and TOS Movies as the dialogue supports it. For TNG, Enterprise and probably Voyager they were your "explorers with guns" and the dialogue bears that out.

DS9 on the other hand could've started out as non-military and due to the war Starfleet became Military. The dialogue bears out that "Starfleet control over the government" equals "military rule".

SISKO: What you're trying to do is to seize control of Earth and place it under military rule.
LEYTON: If that's what it takes to stop the Dominion.
SISKO: So you're willing to destroy paradise in order to save it.
​

SISKO: Do you think other Federation worlds are going to sit back and let their President be replaced by a military dictatorship?
LEYTON: Hardly a dictatorship, Ben.
SISKO: Overthrowing a legitimately elected President and giving Starfleet direct control over the government? It sounds like a dictatorship to me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so.
​

Kirk, McCoy, Garth of Izar, David Marcus and Carol Marcus and the Military Aide and C in C. That would be 7 people during the TOS thru TOS Movie time period.

Click to expand...

Your count's a little off there. McCoy never suggests Starfleet's a military either; the closest he comes to that is suggesting Kirk is "being a soldier so often" he forgets how to be a diplomat, and Kirk makes a similar statement to the Organians. The fact that Kirk is actually NEITHER of those things and wouldn't be even under ideal circumstances indicates that neither of them are speaking literally.

Sisko's remark occurs well after TOS so it's possible during DS9's war that Starfleet went Military for the duration of combat.

Click to expand...

Or that it was about to GO military in the process of overthrowing the President. It would be extraordinarily difficult to reconcile an organization whose founding purpose is claimed to be the peaceful exploration of space and contact with other races suddenly taking control of the government purely by force of arms. That type of government could only be ruled with an iron fist, and Leyton would have to organize (indeed, was in the process of organizing) a heavily entrenched and extremely unpleasant junta in order to remain in power for any amount of time.

Leyton's Starfleet would make the TOS fleet look like a girl scout troop. It would be totally unlike anything we've ever seen before on Star Trek. It would also, at that point, finally be a military.

For TOS, Spock's comment about 70 years of unremitting hostility with the Klingons could indicate that Starfleet had been Military...

Click to expand...

No, it implies the Federation had been guarding the neutral zone for 70 years and preventing Klingon ships (military OR civilian) from crossing. That's the animus behind Cartwright's "safe haven" remark: what Spock is basically describing is a peaceful disposition between the two with an open border and normalized trade relations with the Federation. Cartwright believes that the open border would result a Klingon diaspora throughout Federation space and eventually lead to terrorism and/or separatist movements as Klingons gain majority status in certain choice colonies within Federation space. His "dismantle the fleet" canard is, likewise, a complete strawman and totally disconnected with what anyone in the room was actually proposing.

Carol Marcus does not refute David's "military" description

Click to expand...

In a verbal argument where a man says four ridiculous things one after another, it's not always worth it to refute all four of them separately. Carol simply says "You're misinterpreting this."

It's sort of like how David suggests that an "overgrown boyscout" like Kirk is exactly the kind of man who would want to convert Genesis into a weapon of mass destruction and Carol replies "Kirk was never a boyscout."

What IS definitive, however, is that Starfleet has been explicitly described as a non-military organization and implicitly stated to be one far more often than the reverse.

Click to expand...

What IS definitive is that Starfleet has been explicitly a Military organization during TOS

Click to expand...

No, Starfleet was never called a military ORGANIZATION by anyone but David Marcus. Kirk calls himself "a soldier" by analogy even when he obviously isn't... and that's about it.

DS9 on the other hand could've started out as non-military and due to the war Starfleet became Military. The dialogue bears out that "Starfleet control over the government" equals "military rule"

Click to expand...

At which point Starfleet would have made the transformation envisioned by Admiral Marcus a hundred years earlier. Doubtful that transformation was ever fully completed, seeing how Starfleet never actually overthrew the government.

Sisko's remark occurs well after TOS so it's possible during DS9's war that Starfleet went Military for the duration of combat.

Click to expand...

Or that it was about to GO military in the process of overthrowing the President. It would be extraordinarily difficult to reconcile an organization whose founding purpose is claimed to be the peaceful exploration of space and contact with other races suddenly taking control of the government purely by force of arms. That type of government could only be ruled with an iron fist, and Leyton would have to organize (indeed, was in the process of organizing) a heavily entrenched and extremely unpleasant junta in order to remain in power for any amount of time.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. At that time they were preparing for war as Leighton (or Starfleet under normal circumstances) already had a stockpile of armaments for an army available in the prior episode. But that does bring up the question, during the duration of the Dominion War, was Starfleet a military?

Leyton's Starfleet would make the TOS fleet look like a girl scout troop. It would be totally unlike anything we've ever seen before on Star Trek. It would also, at that point, finally be a military.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Instead, I'd argue that the TOS fleet was far more militarized and armed unlike any other Trek fleet afterwards. TOS was on a sustained war footing with the Klingons and had military forces engaging in combat. The Organians stopped it and interestingly, the Enterprise and Kirk and Spock were also considered "military forces" by the Organians.

AYELBORNE: It is no trick, Commander. We have simply put an end to your war. All your military forces, wherever they are, are now completely paralysed.
​

In a verbal argument where a man says four ridiculous things one after another, it's not always worth it to refute all four of them separately. Carol simply says "You're misinterpreting this."

Click to expand...

That's interesting. What four things did he say were ridiculous? Carol was also explicit in refuting the intended use of the Genesis device by Starfleet which does not refute Starfleet being a military.

It's sort of like how David suggests that an "overgrown boyscout" like Kirk is exactly the kind of man who would want to convert Genesis into a weapon of mass destruction and Carol replies "Kirk was never a boyscout."

Click to expand...

David's dialogue expressed his distrust of Starfleet and it misusing it as a weapon.

DAVID: Every time we have dealings with Starfleet, I get nervous. ...We are dealing with something that could be perverted into a dreadful weapon. Remember that overgrown Boy Scout you used to hang around with? That's exactly the kind of man...
CAROL: Listen, kiddo, Jim Kirk was many things, but he was never a Boy Scout!
​

What IS definitive is that Starfleet has been explicitly a Military organization during TOS

Click to expand...

No, Starfleet was never called a military ORGANIZATION by anyone but David Marcus. Kirk calls himself "a soldier" by analogy even when he obviously isn't... and that's about it.

Click to expand...

David Marcus called Starfleet and/or representatives of Starfleet, "Military", twice. Once to Carol and once to Chekov. Neither time was his claim refuted. Kirk and McCoy both said that Kirk was a "soldier". Garth of Izar called Kirk a "Military Commander". The C in C of Starfleet spells out that Starfleet has "exploration and scientific programs" which point to a period of time that "exploration and science" wasn't the only things Starfleet did. The Organians targeted all the military forces of the Federation and Klingons which included Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise.

Like I said before, TNG and it's related series appear to have a non-Military Starfleet. TOS and TOS Movies on the other hand had a Military Starfleet. DS9 is up for grabs but since they fought a long war it's likely Starfleet personnel had to go military for some of the time.

For instance, in "Empok Nor", O'Brien was once a soldier in an earlier conflict. (He was the Tactical Officer on the Rutledge at that time).

GARAK: This is maddening. Asking a Ferengi to play a Cardassian game is like asking a Klingon to chew with his mouth closed. Kotra is not about regrouping or hoarding assets. It's about bold strategy and decisive action. Chief, would you like to take on the winner? I'd love to play Kotra against the hero of Setlik Three.
O'BRIEN: What is that supposed to mean?
GARAK: Oh, we all know your distinguished war record. How you led two dozen men against the Barrica encampment and took out an entire regiment of Cardassians. If you play Kotra with half that brazenness, we'd have quite a match.
O'BRIEN: I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.
...
O'BRIEN: That doesn't mean I like thinking about what happened then. I was a soldier, Nog. Sometimes soldiers have to kill.
GARAK: Come now, Chief, don't be so modest. You did a lot of killing.

​

And Nog (and O'Brien) in "Favor the Bold" appears to think he's a soldier.

NOG: I've learned a lot from you and not just about engineering. You've shown me what it takes to be a good soldier.
O'BRIEN: Don't let that uniform go to your head. You've got a lot to learn yet. And you will. Congratulations, Ensign. Wear it with pride.

​

and again in "Valiant":

NOG: You don't understand because you've never put on one of these uniforms. You don't know anything about sacrifice or honour or duty or any of the things that make up a soldier's life. I'm part of something larger than myself. All you care about is you.
​

And in "Waltz", Sisko calls himself a soldier along with Dukat.

SISKO: There's no reason to get upset. We're just talking. Two old soldiers talking around a campfire.
​

And later on Sisko is explicitly leading his soldiers in "Seige of AR-558"

SISKO: Now you listen to me, Quark, because I'm only going to say this one time. I care about Nog and every soldier under my command. Understood? Every single one.

​

I'm sure that after the war, Starfleet reverted back to it's peace-time role of explorers and peace-keepers.

So the score still is exactly two references to UFP Starfleet not being a military organization (one of which comes from an alternate universe) - against dozens of lines referring to Starfleet being "the military", having "soldiers", and being the one force identified as fighting wars for the Federation. The evidence really is overwhelming against Starfleet being "nonmilitary"...

...Except for that one moment in "Peak Performance" - a moment falling between the explicit militariness of O'Brien's employer a few years earlier (2362, apparently) and the explicit militariness of the same organization a few years later (2375 at the very latest). Should we really treat this as a time window? Or rather as an outlier and an anomaly?

Kirk, McCoy, Garth of Izar, David Marcus and Carol Marcus and the Military Aide and C in C. That would be 7 people during the TOS thru TOS Movie time period.

Click to expand...

Your count's a little off there. McCoy never suggests Starfleet's a military either; the closest he comes to that is suggesting Kirk is "being a soldier so often" he forgets how to be a diplomat,

Click to expand...

The implication is there by indicating Kirk's role as a "soldier"

Click to expand...

"My role as a soldier" doesn't refer to Starfleet as a military organization. Gang bangers refer to themselves as soldiers too, that doesn't mean the Gangsta Disciples are part of the National Guard.

More to the point, Kirk ALSO has a role as a diplomat and has acted in that capacity half a dozen times. For the same reasons, he isn't literally a diplomat either.

No, Kirk outright said his primary role is being a "soldier, not a diplomat."

Click to expand...

And unless Kirk joined the infantry between commercial breaks, he isn't talking about his "role" in any organization.

Fair enough. At that time they were preparing for war as Leighton (or Starfleet under normal circumstances) already had a stockpile of armaments for an army available in the prior episode. But that does bring up the question, during the duration of the Dominion War, was Starfleet a military?

Click to expand...

I'd like to think they were placed under a wartime authority (like the Federation Security Council or something), but I doubt it. Especially considering that in "One Little Ship" we see the Defiant -- of all ships! -- being sent on a scientific expedition.

Though once again, given the weird nature of the universe in which Star Trek takes place, I'm not sure it would even make a difference.

I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Really?

The TOS fleet had direct control of the Federation government?
The TOS fleet maintained martial law on Earth and surrounding Federation colonies?
The TOS fleet reserved the right to unilaterally overrule any decision or policy of the civilian government in the name of strategic readiness and/or national security?
The TOS fleet routinely ordered summary executions for officers who weren't sufficiently loyal to the Admiral?
The TOS fleet placed the strength of arms and wartime readiness as priority over all other considerations including but not limited to civil liberties and personal freedoms?

And this just from what Leyton was PLANNING. The eventualities of a military junta necessarily mean he would have had to resort to blanket global surveillance, arresting people without trial on charges of sedition, total control of the press and all communications media, total control of civilian movement, direct control of industries and manufacturing bases, and ultimately, conscription of able-bodied civilians to shore up Starfleet's numbers in order to maintain order back home AND fight the Dominion at the same time.

So when I say "Leyton's militarized Starfleet would make the TOS fleet look like a girl scout troop," you need to get my full meaning. The military prioritizes battle readiness and defense to the exclusion of all other concerns, which is the main reason why free societies place VERY elaborate civilian controls on their military apparatus. Starfleet has no such controls other than the prime directive; it NEEDS no such controls because combat readiness and defense are far from its primary concerns. The moment Leyton sought to change that, the Federation found itself with a serious problem.

That's interesting. What four things did he say were ridiculous?

Click to expand...

"Scientists have always been pawns to the military."

1) It's a personal outlook that simply reflects David's hatred of the concept of "the military." Scientists have often voluntarily aided the military to develop new weapon systems, but just as often scientists use the military as a source of funding for their pet projects. Almost never do scientists become unwilling participants in military planning... except, of course, in military dictatorships.

2) Implying Starfleet is the military

3) Implying the Genesis Project is being used as a pawn to Starflelet

4) Even if any of the above were true, implying that Starfleet has a militaristic objective in mind for Genesis.

Carol has about five seconds to comment in what is already a heated argument and mainly focuses on the last two points: SHE thinks this has to be some kind of huge misunderstanding, while David thinks it's a big shadowy conspiracy by the evil military.

David's dialogue expressed his distrust of Starfleet and it misusing it as a weapon.

Click to expand...

Actually it reflects his mistrust of KIRK, which is -- if you think about it -- more than likely the nature of his mistrust of Starfleet. That David thinks Kirk is "exactly the kind of man" who would do what he fears says as much: Kirk is the only Starfleet officer he's ever known other than Chekov and Terrell.

David Marcus called Starfleet and/or representatives of Starfleet, "Military", twice. Once to Carol and once to Chekov. Neither time was his claim refuted.

Click to expand...

The first time nobody was listening to him; Carol patently ignored him and talked OVER him.

And again, David hardly has the corner on knowing what he's talking about; the most ironic of those is "Don't have kittens, Genesis is going to work!"

Kirk and McCoy both said that Kirk was a "soldier". Garth of Izar called Kirk a "Military Commander"

Click to expand...

In hindsight, his psychotic episode and attempted genocide and the Antosians probably generated a memorandum to all Starfleet commanders to cease and desist referring to themselves as "military commanders."

The C in C of Starfleet spells out that Starfleet has "exploration and scientific programs" which point to a period of time that "exploration and science" wasn't the only things Starfleet did.

Click to expand...

It's never the ONLY thing Starfleet does. But it is by far the most prevalent. War has a way of changing everyone's priorities substantially, but war is an EMERGENCY, one of many such emergencies Starfleet is designed to cope with.

I'm sure that after the war, Starfleet reverted back to it's peace-time role of explorers and peace-keepers.

Click to expand...

Given the events in "One little ship" it seems they never actually gave it up.

More to the point, Kirk ALSO has a role as a diplomat and has acted in that capacity half a dozen times. For the same reasons, he isn't literally a diplomat either.

Click to expand...

Actually, he explicitly stated he wasn't a diplomat. He was instead said to be "also trained to be a diplomat" but that doesn't appear to be his primary role given the dialogue and times where he is escorting actual diplomats.

"Scientists have always been pawns to the military."
...Carol has about five seconds to comment in what is already a heated argument and mainly focuses on the last two points: SHE thinks this has to be some kind of huge misunderstanding, while David thinks it's a big shadowy conspiracy by the evil military.

Click to expand...

She has way more than five seconds to respond so it isn't because she's being rushed at or has a deadline to give an answer. The point still is that David's claim of Starfleet equaling the military is not refuted.

The C in C of Starfleet spells out that Starfleet has "exploration and scientific programs" which point to a period of time that "exploration and science" wasn't the only things Starfleet did.

Click to expand...

It's never the ONLY thing Starfleet does. But it is by far the most prevalent. War has a way of changing everyone's priorities substantially, but war is an EMERGENCY, one of many such emergencies Starfleet is designed to cope with.

Click to expand...

The sustained threat of war in TOS and TOS Movies would indicate that Starfleet spent an equal if not greater time deterring the enemy from striking than engaging in science and exploration.

I'm sure that after the war, Starfleet reverted back to it's peace-time role of explorers and peace-keepers.

Click to expand...

Given the events in "One little ship" it seems they never actually gave it up.

Click to expand...

They probably didn't give it up in the way you're thinking as those programs still ran parallel to the military programs during TOS/TOS Movies. But food for thought, in "One Little Ship" the scientific assignment had a military reasoning:

WORF: The data collected here could provide Starfleet with the key to creating transwarp corridors through space. It could give us a substantial tactical advantage over the Dominion.
​

More to the point, Kirk ALSO has a role as a diplomat and has acted in that capacity half a dozen times. For the same reasons, he isn't literally a diplomat either.

Click to expand...

Actually, he explicitly stated he wasn't a diplomat.

Click to expand...

And Bones explicitly stated that he WAS, remember?

She has way more than five seconds to respond so it isn't because she's being rushed at or has a deadline to give an answer.

Click to expand...

She's in the middle of a heated argument with twelve other people over the subject of "What are we gonna do about that starship that's coming here to confiscate our life's work for no reason?" That's not exactly the time to make a point-by-point rebuttal of your jackass son's philosophical (and ultimately misplaced) aversion to militarism.

She tells him she disagrees with his interpretation of events; she never gets into what his interpretation actually IS. Given what we recently came to find out about Carol Marcus' background, that interpretation is probably something like "Granmpa finally got his wish, Starfleet has become a military, and now we are their pawns."

If nobody was listening to him Carol would've ignored his request to pin down who authorized the new orders.

Click to expand...

She did ignore him. Which is why DAVID was the one who asked that question, not Carol.

That's just confidence on his part bolstered by the small success of the Genesis cave. We only know from the follow-up movie that on a large scale it doesn't work.

Click to expand...

And we also know why: because David used protomatter in the Genesis Matrix, a substance which no ethical scientist in the universe would ever risk using on a large OR small scale.

Which makes sense, since most of David's assertions are based more on confidence than on actual fact.

The sustained threat of war in TOS and TOS Movies would indicate that Starfleet spent an equal if not greater time deterring the enemy from striking than engaging in science and exploration.

Click to expand...

Except deterrence isn't a full-time job. A NOAA vessel armed with nuclear warheads would still act as a nuclear deterrent even if it spends ninety percent of its time mapping the sea floor and surveying population numbers of minke whales. When all of a sudden Finland decides to declare war on the United States, the science vessel hoists the launcher up on the deck and fires off a couple megatons of rocket-propelled Don't-Fuck-With-Us; Finland goes back to doing whatever it was doing before it got nuked, and NOAA goes back to charting the sea floor.

I'm not just being glib here, on some level it's a basic consequence of the advantages of advanced weapons technology. When you can condense the ability to glass an entire planet into a five foot metal box and plug that into a slot on the outside of your hull, then the type of ship that CARRIES that box becomes much less important than the type of people who are running it. Nuclear weapons in particular are powerful enough that a person with no military training whatsoever could still successfully use one to destroy an entire city; phasers and photon torpedoes are hundreds of times more powerful than nukes. In fact, given episodes like the Omega Glory and Whom Gods Destroy, I suspect the Federation is alot less worried about its fleet being ready to defend them than it is about its fleet not being tempted to misuse those weapons either through carelessness or malice. It wouldn't be merely political, but a practical concern: the only people they trust to carry those weapons are the people LEAST inclined to use them in anger.

But food for thought, in "One Little Ship" the scientific assignment had a military reasoning:

WORF: The data collected here could provide Starfleet with the key to creating transwarp corridors through space. It could give us a substantial tactical advantage over the Dominion.
​

Click to expand...

I'm not sure to what extent that is the actual reasoning for the mission as much as Worf being... you know, Worf.

She's in the middle of a heated argument with twelve other people over the subject of "What are we gonna do about that starship that's coming here to confiscate our life's work for no reason?" That's not exactly the time to make a point-by-point rebuttal of your jackass son's philosophical (and ultimately misplaced) aversion to militarism.

Click to expand...

She controls the conversation. She's the boss of them and she clearly rebutts his interpretation of the Starfleet's actions. If he was wrong about the military aspect of Starfleet she would've called him out. Since she does not, his statement still stands.

She tells him she disagrees with his interpretation of events; she never gets into what his interpretation actually IS. Given what we recently came to find out about Carol Marcus' background, that interpretation is probably something like "Granmpa finally got his wish, Starfleet has become a military, and now we are their pawns."

Which makes sense, since most of David's assertions are based more on confidence than on actual fact.

Click to expand...

No, only the one about the Genesis device. His claim that Starfleet was a military was made twice and both times were not disputed by Chekov (Starfleet) or anyone of the scientists present on Regula, including Carol Marcus.

The sustained threat of war in TOS and TOS Movies would indicate that Starfleet spent an equal if not greater time deterring the enemy from striking than engaging in science and exploration.

Click to expand...

Except deterrence isn't a full-time job. A NOAA vessel armed with nuclear warheads would still act as a nuclear deterrent even if it spends ninety percent of its time mapping the sea floor and surveying population numbers of minke whales.

No, McCoy explicitly said Kirk was also trained to be a diplomat but he's a soldier a majority ("so often") of the time.

Click to expand...

Makes little difference: Kirk says "I'm a soldier, not a diplomat" but we have McCoy who says "You're a soldier AND a diplomat." They can't both be right.

She controls the conversation. She's the boss of them and she clearly rebutts his interpretation of the Starfleet's actions. If he was wrong about the military aspect of Starfleet she would've called him out.

Click to expand...

What, in your opinion, IS David's interpretation and how do you know?

The alternate/NuTrek universe doesn't have anything to do with TWOK.

Click to expand...

Except that Carol Marcus is the same age or slightly older than Kirk and therefore her parentage wouldn't be affected by the Narada incident. We know her father is Admiral Marcus, and we know what he thinks of Starfleet in the alternate timeline. It's hardly unlikely -- given what we saw in TUC -- that his agenda was all that different in the Prime Timeline, especially since he would have been just one of MANY people who felt that way.

Chekov answered before she could react. And since Chekov didn't ignore him and he heard David's military comment...

Click to expand...

Chekov didn't respond to his "military" comment either. No one did; Carol cut him off and Chekov politely responded to HER, not to David.

You're implying the lack of a rebuttal makes the statement equivalent to a fact. It's like running up to a soldier and saying "Hey there, baby killer!" and he responds with "Go fuck yourself." You would take that an admission that he IS, in fact, a baby killer?

However it did work on a small scale. We have no reason to believe it wouldn't work on a large scale until they tried it.

Click to expand...

The use of protomatter was reason enough, and David evidently knew that already since he never bothered to share that information with Saavik or Carol until the planet's instabilities came to light. Saavik, for her part, already began to suspect something was amiss when the planet's climate was shown to be entirely randomized and unstable; David try to play it off like "Wow, that's pretty cool..."

No, only the one about the Genesis device. His claim that Starfleet was a military was made twice and both times were not disputed by Chekov (Starfleet) or anyone of the scientists present on Regula, including Carol Marcus.

Click to expand...

Because the first time his comment was ignored as the ranting of pissed off hothead being a pissed-off hothead. The second time Carol flatly tells him his interpretation is wrong, and again, we don't know what his interpretation IS.

No, McCoy explicitly said Kirk was also trained to be a diplomat but he's a soldier a majority ("so often") of the time.

Click to expand...

Makes little difference: Kirk says "I'm a soldier, not a diplomat" but we have McCoy who says "You're a soldier AND a diplomat." They can't both be right.

Click to expand...

No, that's not McCoy says. He called Kirk a soldier but also trained to be a diplomat. He can have secondary roles, like that of an explorer during peacetime. It still doesn't take away his military credentials.

MCCOY: Maybe you're a soldier so often that you forget you're also trained to be a diplomat. Why not try a carrot instead of a stick?
​

She controls the conversation. She's the boss of them and she clearly rebutts his interpretation of the Starfleet's actions. If he was wrong about the military aspect of Starfleet she would've called him out.

Click to expand...

What, in your opinion, IS David's interpretation and how do you know?

Click to expand...

My opinion is different than yours and I know the same way you do - with imagination

Except that Carol Marcus is the same age or slightly older than Kirk and therefore her parentage wouldn't be affected by the Narada incident. We know her father is Admiral Marcus, and we know what he thinks of Starfleet in the alternate timeline. It's hardly unlikely -- given what we saw in TUC -- that his agenda was all that different in the Prime Timeline, especially since he would have been just one of MANY people who felt that way.

Click to expand...

There are a host of variables that could make Carol, her father and NuTrek Starfleet different than in TWOK. Two separate continuities with different results.

Chekov didn't respond to his "military" comment either. No one did; Carol cut him off and Chekov politely responded to HER, not to David.

Click to expand...

But Chekov did respond to his request for who gave the order. Like it or not, David was part of the conversation and his military comment was not refuted.

CHEKOV: I have my orders.
DAVID: Pin him down, Mother. Who gave the order?
CHEKOV: The order comes from Admiral James T. Kirk.
DAVID: I knew it! I knew it! All along the military has wanted to get their han...
CAROL: This is completely improper, Commander Chekov. I have no intention of allowing Reliant or any other unauthorised personnel access to our work or materials.
CHEKOV: I'm sorry that you feel that way, Doctor. Admiral Kirk's orders are confirmed.
​

You're implying the lack of a rebuttal makes the statement equivalent to a fact. It's like running up to a soldier and saying "Hey there, baby killer!" and he responds with "Go fuck yourself." You would take that an admission that he IS, in fact, a baby killer?

Click to expand...

I would take it as an admission that he is a soldier and that you admit that he is a soldier by describing him as such

Because the first time his comment was ignored as the ranting of pissed off hothead being a pissed-off hothead. The second time Carol flatly tells him his interpretation is wrong, and again, we don't know what his interpretation IS.

Click to expand...

Good thing he's explicitly calling Starfleet the military. We don't need to know any interpretation there

So if Picard said Starfleet was a military organization you'd find something to discredit him on?

Click to expand...

There's nothing to discredit here. Worf thinks of EVERYTHING in military terms, partially because he's a tactical officer, but MOSTLY because he's a Klingon.

Significantly, if Worf ever came out and stated that Starfleet was a military organization I would believe him over Picard; Worf, of all people, would know a military when he sees one.

Click to expand...

If you didn't trust Picard that much why would you believe him if he said Starfleet was not a military organization?

But, I'm not questioning Picard just like I'm not questioning Kirk or McCoy or any of the other characters. They said what they said and what we have is a Military Starfleet for TOS and the TOS Movies and a Non-Military Starfleet for TNG. DS9's Starfleet apparently went Military for the war.

I never said it did. I said it contradicts Kirk's claim that he ISN'T a diplomat. He's trained to be BOTH, so his statement to the Organians is not entirely true.

Even less does it demonstrate if the statement is LITERALLY true. Is Kirk an actual member of the diplomatic corps, or is he merely trained to resolve disputes peacefully if he needs to? Is Kirk an actual member of a formal land army or is he merely trained to fight land battles if he needs to? Those are not necessarily the same thing.

My opinion is different than yours

Click to expand...

That wasn't the question, now was it?

But Chekov did respond to his request for who gave the order.

Click to expand...

And he gave the response he was ORDERED to give by Khan, who meanwhile was standing not more than two feet away from him. Somehow I doubt the ceti eel in his brain would have left him competent enough to engage David in a philosophical debate about the nature of Starfleet in Federation legal parlance.

I would take it as an admission that he is a soldier and that you admit that he is a soldier...

Click to expand...

But you didn't call him a "soldier" you called him "baby killer." He didn't refute your accusation, ergo he is admitting he IS "someone who kills babies."

It makes no difference if you're talking to an actual soldier or just a guy in a Halloween costume. You're claiming that the lack of refutation is an admission of fact. That's a VERY shaky premise to say the least.

How do we know Carol or any of the other scientists didn't know about the protomatter?

Click to expand...

Because David tells Saavik "I used protomatter in the genesis matrix." That's "I" not "we". He did it himself, and given the controversial nature of protomatter it's doubtful the rest of the team would have approved had he shared that information with them.

Good thing he's explicitly calling Starfleet the military.

Click to expand...

That wouldn't be an "interpretation of events" would it?

What is David actually accusing Starfleet of? He says "We're all alone here. They waited until everyone was on leave to do this. Reliant was supposed to be at our disposal, not vice versa."

Who is the "everyone" he's talking about and why would their being on leave make any difference? Most likely he's referring to the Starfleet corps of engineers working the Genesis Cave and other personnel permanently attached as support for the Genesis Project... but if he was accusing STARFLEET of making him into their pawns, their "waiting until everyone was on leave" would contradict that theory, since in that case there'd be no Starfleet presence on the station to back up Reliant's seizure of the Genesis Device.

From what I can tell, David is accusing Starfleet of doing something even STARFLEET wouldn't normally agree to, and is being rebuffed by Carol who insists that Starfleet would never have agreed to be part of that. It's therefore possible that "scientists are pawns of the military" isn't mean to describe their situation, it's meant to describe Starfleet's. Remember that overgrown boyscout Carol used to hang around with? That's exactly the kind of man who would want to convert Genesis into a weapon of mass destruction... and HE'S the man who gave the order.

But I'll ask you again: what do YOU think David's interpretation of the situation is?

So you're confirming that there are not any non-military organizations comparable to a military with nukes.

Click to expand...

I'm confirming that there are not any REAL organizations comparable to Starfleet.

If you didn't trust Picard that much why would you believe him if he said Starfleet was not a military organization?

Click to expand...

Because I DO trust Picard enough to understand the factual nature of the organization he works for. I also trust worf to understand the factual nature of Federation law vis a vis military forces. In a disagreement between the two, Worf is an expert on military matters and I would lean ever so slightly on his expertise over Picard's.